Triple negative breast cancer: proposals for a pragmatic definition and implications for patient management and trial design.

In trials in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC), oestrogen and progesterone receptor negativity should be defined as < 1% positive cells. Negativity is a ratio of <2 between Her2 gene copy number and centromere of chromosome 17 or a copy number of 4 or less. In routine practice, immunohistochemistry is acceptable given stringent quality assurance. Triple negativity emerging after neoadjuvant treatment differs from primary TN and such patients should not enter TNBC trials. Patients relapsing with TN metastases should be eligible even if their primary was positive. Rare TN subtypes such as apocrine, adenoid-cystic and low-grade metaplastic tumours should be excluded. TN and basal-like (BL) signatures overlap but are not equivalent. Since the significance of basal cytokeratin or EGFR overexpression is not known and we lack validated assays, these features should not be used to subclassify TN tumours. Tissue collection in trials is mandatory so the effect on outcome of different tumour phenotypes and BRCA mutation can be explored. No prospective studies have established that TN tumours have particular sensitivity or resistance to any specific chemotherapy agent or radiation. TNBC patients should be treated according to tumour and clinical characteristics

Distinct clinical and prognostic features of infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast: Combined results of 15 International Breast Cancer Study Group clinical trials

Purpose To determine how patients with infiltrating lobular carcinoma (ILC) differ from patients with the more common infiltrating ductal carcinoma (IDC) with regard to patient and tumor factors, local treatment, and patterns of recurrence. Patients and Methods Twelve thousand two hundred six breast cancer patients entered onto 15 International Breast Cancer Study Group trials between 1978 and 2002 were categorized as having ILC, IDC, or other/ mixed types. Results Seven hundred sixty-seven tumors (6.2%) were classified as ILC, 8,607 (70.5%) were classified as IDC, and 2,832 (23.2%) were classified as other. The analysis is limited to the 9,374 patients categorized as either pure IDC or ILC. The median follow-up time was 13 years. Compared with IDC, ILC was associated with older age; larger, better differentiated, and estrogen receptor (ER) -positive tumors; and less vessel invasion. Mastectomy was used more frequently for ILC (P &lt; .01). There was a significant (P &lt; .01) early advantage in disease-free survival and overall survival for the ILC cohort followed by a significant (P &lt; .01) late advantage for the IDC cohort after 6 and 10 years, respectively. Similar patterns were observed in cohorts defined by ER status. ILC was associated with an increased incidence of bone events but a decrease in regional and lung events (all P &lt; .01). Conclusion ILC is more than a histologic variant of breast cancer. The diagnosis of ILC carries distinct prognostic and biologic implications